Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:10:10.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

36 - Spectrum Markets: Motivation, Challenges, and Implications

from Part VI - Secondary Markets and Exchanges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2017

Randall Berry
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Northwestern University
Michael L. Honig
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Northwestern University
Rakesh V. Vohra
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania
Martin Bichler
Affiliation:
Technische Universität München
Jacob K. Goeree
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The continued growth of wireless networks and services depends on the availability of adequate spectrum resources. Accelerating demand for those resources, due to the popularity of portable data-intensive wireless devices, are testing the limits of current commercial wireless networks, underscoring the need for changes in current spectrum allocations. This has prompted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States to consider ways to increase the supply of spectrum allocated to broadband access and to introduce techniques for improving the utilization of existing allocations [1, Ch. 5].

Spectrum allocations generally fall into one of two categories: a licensed allocation gives exclusive use rights to the licensee, whereas an unlicensed allocation corresponds to the commons model in which the band can be shared by different applications and service providers [2]. Licensed spectrum typically carries restrictions on how it can be used, and is generally not transferable. Although these restrictions have been alleviated to some extent by the introduction of secondary spectrum markets [3], existing rules still inhibit the reallocation of spectrum to more efficient uses.

In contrast to the current “command and control” method for licensing spectrum, a spectrum market is based on a notion of spectrum property rights, which can be traded among buyers and sellers. The potential benefits of spectrum markets for increasing the efficiency of spectrum allocations is widely acknowledged. Thus far related discussions have focused on secondary markets, which allow service providers with licensed spectrum to lease their spectrum to other service providers. Transactions must be filed with the FCC for approval (which are automatic in some scenarios), introducing delays that increase transaction costs [3].

Here we reconsider the spectrum allocation problem without existing regulatory constraints. We start by providing general motivations for introducing spectrum markets. That is, a basic policy choice is whether to define and enforce spectrum property rights. From a social welfare point of view, this choice ultimately depends on whether spectrum is scarce, that is, if demand for it exceeds supply when it is free.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Federal Communications Commission, “The national broadband plan,” March 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.broadband.gov/plan/5-spectrum.
[2] J.M., Peha, “Approaches to spectrum sharing,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 10–12, 2005.Google Scholar
[3] FCC, “The development of secondary markets - report and order and further notice of proposed rule making,” Federal Communications Commission Report 03-113, 2003.
[4] T. W., Hazlett, “The wireless craze, the unlimited bandwidth myth, the spectrum auction faux pas, and the punchline to Ronald Coase's ‘big joke’: An essay on airwave allocation policy,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 335–567, 2001.Google Scholar
[5] G. R., Faulhaber and D. J., Farber, “Spectrum management: Property rights, markets, and the commons,” Rethinking rights and regulations: institutional responses to new communicationtechnologies, pp. 193–226, 2003.Google Scholar
[6] P. J., Weiser and D., Hatfield, “Spectrum policy reform and the next frontier of property rights,” George Mason Law Review, vol. 15, p. 549, 2007.Google Scholar
[7] T.W., Hazlett, “A law & economics approach to spectrum property rights: A response toWeiser and Hatfield,” George Mason Law Review, vol. 15, no. 4, 2008.Google Scholar
[8] O., lleri and N.Mandayam, “Dynamic spectrum access models: toward an engineering perspective in the spectrum debate,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 153–160, January 2008.Google Scholar
[9] R. H., Coase, “The Federal Communications Commission,” The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 1, 1959.Google Scholar
[10] E. R., Kwerel and J. R., Williams, “Moving toward a market for spectrum,” Regulation: TheReview of Business and Government, 1993.Google Scholar
[11] Q., Zhao and B. M., Sadler, “A survey of dynamic spectrum access,” IEEE Signal ProcessingMagazine, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 79–89, May 2007.Google Scholar
[12] M., Cave and W., Webb, “Spectrum licensing and spectrum commons: where to draw the line,” in International Workshop on Wireless Communication Policies and Prospects: A Global Perspective, 2004.
[13] D. P., Reed, “How wireless networks scale: the illusion of spectrum scarcity,” in InternationalSymposium On Advanced Radio Technologies (ISART), 2002.
[14] T. S., Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice , 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, 1996.
[15] S., Hunt and G., Shuttleworth, Competition and Choice in Electricity . John Wiley & Sons, May 1996.
[16] N., Nisan, T., Roughgarden, E., Tardos, and V. V., Vazirani, Eds., Algorithmic Game Theory . Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2007.
[17] J., Huang, R., Berry, and M., Honig, “Distributed interference compensation for wireless networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1074–1084, May 2006.Google Scholar
[18] J., Bae, E., Beigman, R., Berry, M., Honig, and R., Vohra, “Incentives and resource sharing in spectrum commons,” IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks(DySPAN 2008), pp. 1–10, Oct. 2008.Google Scholar
[19] H., Zhou, R., Berry,M., Honig, and R., Vohra, “Complementarities in spectrum markets,” in AllertonConference on Communications, Control and Computing, Monticello, IL, 2009.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×